Reciprocal relationships between teamwork execution, emergent states, and perceived team performance: a longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to analyze the reciprocal relationships between teamwork execution (i.e., communication, cooperation, and coordination), emergent states (i.e., group cohesion and collective efficacy), and perceived team performance among sport teams over the course of a competitive season. We also examined whether (a) emergent states mediated the relationship between teamwork execution and perceived team performance, and (b) teamwork execution mediated the relationship between emergent states and perceived team performance. We adopted a longitudinal design, taking measures of each variable near the beginning, middle, and end of teams’ seasons. Participants included 657 athletes (104 teams), aged 16–43 years (M = 23.56, SD = 5.72; 71% men), and from a range of team sports and competitive levels. Structural equation models showed teamwork execution was positively and reciprocally related to collective efficacy as well as task cohesion (but not social cohesion). Teamwork execution also predicted perceived team performance over time but a reciprocal effect was not evident. Finally, task cohesion and collective efficacy mediated the longitudinal association between teamwork execution and perceived team performance; however, teamwork execution did not mediate the relationship between those emergent states and perceived team performance. These findings provide initial evidence of longitudinal relationships between teamwork execution, two emergent states, and perceived performance. It appears particularly important that coaches and practitioners focus on developing teamwork execution from the outset of their team’s season as this appears to translate over time into greater task cohesion and collective efficacy and, in turn, team performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".